Minnesota State University, Mankato

Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, MankatoTheses, Dissertations, and Other Capstone Projects

2014

A Study of Refusal Strategies by American and

International Students at an American UniversityHiroko Tsuiki MoaveniMinnesota State University - Mankato

Follow this and additional works at: http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/etds

Part of the Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education Commons, and the First andSecond Language Acquisition Commons

Recommended CitationMoaveni, Hiroko Tsuiki, "A Study of Refusal Strategies by American and International Students at an American University" (2014).Theses, Dissertations, and Other Capstone Projects. Paper 355.

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University,Mankato. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations, and Other Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of Cornerstone: ACollection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato.A Study of Refusal Strategies by American and International Students at an American University

By

Hiroko Tsuiki Moaveni

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts: English

In

Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL)

Minnesota State University, Mankato

Mankato, Minnesota

July 2014 iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Karen Lybeck and Dr. Glen Poupore

for their guidance, advice, and support during my graduate studies and this thesis. I am

The Frequency of Semantic Formulas ........................................................................103 Order of the Semantic Formulas .................................................................................106 v

Table 1 Possible Responses and Outcomes from Gass and Houck (1999)....................................9Table 2 Classification of Refusals by Beebe, Takahashi and Uliss-Weltz (1990) ......................15Table 3 The Native Languages of International Participants.......................................................36Table 4 The Semantic Formulas Used in the Analysis of Data ...................................................43Table 5 Frequency of Refusal Strategies Used in Situation 1 by American Students .................45Table 6 Order of Refusal to Situation 1 by All American Students (both female and male) ......47Table 7 Order of Refusal to Situation 1 by American Students by Gender .................................47Table 8 Frequency of Refusal Strategies Used in Situation 1 by International Students ............49Table 9 Order of Refusal to Situation 1 by All International Students (both female and male) .50Table 10 Order of Refusal to Situation 1 by International Students by Gender ...........................50Table 11 Frequency of Refusal Strategies Used in Situation 4 by American Students ................52Table 12 Order of Refusal to Situation 4 by All American Students (both female and male) .....53Table 13 Order of Refusal to Situation 4 by American Students by Gender ................................54Table 14 Frequency of Refusal Strategies Used in Situation 4 by International Students ...........56Table 15 Order of Refusal to Situation 4 by All International Students (both female and male)58Table 16 Order of Refusal to Situation 4 by International Students by Gender ...........................58Table 17 Frequency of Refusal Strategies Used in Situation 3 by American Students ................61Table 18 Order of Refusal to Situation 3 by All American Students (both female and male) .....63Table 19 Order of Refusal to Situation 3 by American Students by Gender ................................63Table 20 Frequency of Refusal Strategies Used in Situation 3 by International Students ...........65Table 21 Order of Refusal to Situation 3 by All International Students (both female and male) 66Table 22 Order of Refusal to Situation 3 by International Students by Gender ...........................67Table 23 Frequency of Refusal Strategies Used in Situation 6 by American Students ................69Table 24 Order of Refusal to Situation 6 by All American Students (both female and male) .....70Table 25 Order of Refusal to Situation 6 by American Students by Gender ................................70Table 26 Frequency of Refusal Strategies Used in Situation 6 by International Students ...........72Table 27 Order of Refusal to Situation 6 by All International Students (both female and male) 73 vii

Table 28 Order of Refusal to Situation 6 by International Students by Gender ...........................73

Table 29 Frequency of Refusal Strategies Used in Situation 2 by American Students ................77Table 30 Order of Refusal to Situation 2 by All American Students (both female and male) .....78Table 31 Order of Refusal to Situation 2 by American Students by Gender ................................79Table 32 Frequency of Refusal Strategies Used in Situation 2 by the International Students .....81Table 33 Order of Refusal to Situation 2 by All International Students (both female and male) 82Table 34 Order of Refusal to Situation 2 by International Students by Gender ...........................82Table 35 Frequency of Refusal Strategies Used in Situation 5 by American Students ................85Table 36 Order of Refusal to Situation 5 by All American Students (both female and male) .....86Table 37 Order of Refusal to Situation 5 by American Students by Gender ................................86Table 38 Frequency of Refusal Strategies Used in Situation 5 by International Students ...........88Table 39 Order of Refusal to Situation 5 by All International Students (both female and male) 89Table 40 Order of Refusal to Situation 5 by International Students by Gender ..........................90Table 41 Frequently Used Semantic Formulas by the American Students .................................97Table 42 The Most Frequently Used Semantic Formulas in the First and Second Orders by the American Students ........................................................................................................98Table 43 Frequently Used Semantic Formulas by the International Students ............................101

Table 44 The Most Frequently Used Semantic Formulas in the First and Second Orders by the International Students ..................................................................................................102 viii

Figure 2 The number of years that the international student participants have been studying English ..........................................................................................................................37Figure 3 The number of years that the international student participants have lived in U.S. .......37 ix

Abstract

Refusals are delicate speech acts for non-native speakers to negotiate because they

require negative responses to an interlocutor's invitation or request. In addition to

cultural variation, variables such as gender and modes of communication (e.g., emails)

add dimensions to the complexity when performing refusals. The main objective of this

study is to investigate the difference in refusal strategies between American and

international college students as well as gender variation. Using a written Discourse

Completion Task, six situations were developed and grouped in two stimulus types

eliciting refusals to an invitation and a request. Each stimulus type involved an email

refusal to professors, friends, and a staff member of an academic department. The

refusals of sixteen undergraduate American students and thirty-two international students

were analyzed in terms of frequency, order, and content of semantic formulas. The

results of this study suggest that when using email, all groups demonstrated preference

for direct refusal. American females preferred expressions of gratitude and stating

positive opinions, whereas American male provided reasons and alternatives. The

international students used a greater variety of semantic formulas; however, they lacked

positive opinions and providing alternatives. Additionally, the international students

tended to use more regret than the American students. The international students (both

male and female) also tended to use more specific excuses as compared to more general

• Situation 3: You receive an email from the department you are majoring in at your

university inviting you to their alumni event. In order to know how many people

are attending the event, your department asks you to respond to the email. You

don't want to go. How would you respond to the email? In the space provided

below, write a reply to the coordinator's email.

• Situation 4: You receive an email from your professors, asking you to mentor an

incoming international student next semester. However, you don't want to do it.

How would you respond to your professors' request? In the space provided below,

write a reply to the professors' email.

• Situation 5: You receive an email from two of your friends, asking you to read

their paper and provide feedback. However, you don't want to do it. How would

you respond to your friends? In the space provided below, write a reply to the

friends’ email.

• Situation 6: You receive an email from the department you are majoring in at your

university asking you to attend a teaching demonstration by a candidate for a

position in the department. However, you don't want to attend the demonstration.

How would you respond to the email? In the space provided below, write a reply

to the coordinator's email.

41

Procedure and Data Analysis

The collected data was classified according to the refusal strategies shown in

Table 4. The subjects' refusal strategies were analyzed by matching word(s), phrase(s), or

sentence(s) that met a particular semantic criterion or strategy. Data analysis of this study

was guided mainly by the framework set by Beebe et al. (1990) with some modification.

Specifically, the modified taxonomy did not differentiate between performative (e.g., I

refuse) and nonperformative (e.g., I can’t) direct refusal statements because the

occurrence of performative refusals were few (only four cases, by two people among 48

participants). Moreover, the promise of future acceptance was changed to future

possibility because the majority of statements made by the participants in this study were

not promises, but rather possibilities for the future (e.g., maybe next time), which is likely

related to the scenarios utilized in the DCT. The statement of philosophy, attempt to

dissuade interlocutor, and acceptance that functions as refusal also were omitted since

they did not occur in the respondents’ data. Furthermore, avoidance was replaced by

hedge as only hedging was found under the avoidance category. Finally, the request for

empathy, greetings, and acknowledgement of receipts were added to the adjunct to refusal

category, as those semantic formulas supplemented refusals, but by themselves cannot

function as refusals.

After all of the refusal strategies were classified, their order and frequency were

determined. For example, in a situation in which a participant refused an invitation from

professors by stating [I am sorry] to say that [I will be out of town at a family member's

wedding the weekend of the 20th], this response was coded as [Statement of regret] plus 42

[Reason/excuse/explanation], with the statement of regret occurring in the first order and

reason occurring in the second order. The frequency was calculated as the number of

respondents who used a particular formula. All the frequency and order results obtained

from the participants were converted to percentages. To derive at the percentage, the

number of responses was then divided by the total number of the participants in each

group. This procedure will be explained in greater detail in Chapter IV.

Next, the contents of reasons for refusal, positive opinions and alternatives were

further examined in more detail. Finally, for each situation, the frequency, order, and

content of refusal strategies used by participants were compared between native and

nonnative speakers of English, and by gender. The detailed data analysis and results are

discussed in Chapter IV.

43

Table 4The semantic formulas used in the analysis of data (modified from Beebe et al., 1990)

Semantic formulas Examples from the collected data

Direct Negative willingness/capability I can't/I won'tIndirect 1. Statement of regret I'm sorry/I apologize/Unfortunately 2. Wish I wish I could/I would like to but 3. Reason/excuse/explanation I have a lot going on right now 4. Statement of alternative Someone else would do a much better job 5. Set condition for past or future If I (will) have extra time, I will definitely acceptance help you∗ 6. Future possibility Maybe next time 7. Statement of principle I can't ignore if you ask to me for something∗ 8. Hedge I'm not sure/ I will inform you if there is any possibilityAdjuncts to refusal 1. Gratitude Thank you for your invitation/I appreciate . . . 2. Statement of positive opinion Hope you enjoy∗ 3. Request for empathy I think you can understand my situation.∗ 4. Greetings How are you doing these days?∗ 5. Acknowledgement of receipt I got your email

* differ from Beebe et al., 1990

44

Chapter IV: Data Analysis and Results

In this chapter, the participants’ responses to the six situations that were discussed

in Chapter 3 are presented. The results are organized in the order of power and distance

of the interlocutor (+Power, +Distance), (-Power, +Distance), (-Power, -Distance) and

by stimulus types (invitation and request). In each section, the American group results are

presented first followed by the international students’ results. For each group, the

frequencies, the order, and the content of semantic formulas are examined. At the end of

this chapter a summary of results is presented.

Refusals to an Invitation from Professors (+Power, +Distance)

American Students.

Frequency of semantic formulas. The results of the frequency of semantic

formulas used for situation 1, which involves an invitation from professors to a

graduation celebration, are shown in Table 5. This may be a good place to say a few

words about what the numbers in Table 5 represent. As an example, in Table 5, the

percentage value in the Male column and the Direct row shows 87.5%. This value

indicates that 7 of 8 American male students or 87.5 % of them used a direct refusal

semantic formula in situation 1.

The majority of the American students expressed gratitude (87.5%), most

commonly in the form of Thank you for and I appreciate, and stated a direct refusal

(75.0%) such as I will not be able to attend. Another commonly used strategy was to give

a reason or excuse as to why they would not be attending (50.0%). As also shown in 45

Table 5, the direct refusal followed by a reason formula was stated more frequently by

the male students (87.5%, 62.5%, respectively) than the females (62.5%, 37.5%).

Table 5

Frequency of Refusal Strategies Used in Situation 1 by American Students